Tremendous's May 26, 2026 survey suggests that gift card preference can depend on the work involved in claiming a payment, as well as the retailer itself. Monetary options led overall, but respondents described situations in which they would choose a gift card. [S01]
Why the publisher has a stake in the answer
Tremendous distributes corporate rewards and payouts. Its published pricing offers gift cards without a sending fee and attributes revenue to partnerships with reward brands. Monetary options can incur fees. The company therefore operates across both sides of the comparison, with commercial arrangements that vary by method. These are its published pricing terms at this review, not prices tested in the survey. [S02]
Tremendous published sending-fee range by route
Current October 18 pricing; displayed range endpoints, not customer averages.
percent sending fee
Tap or hover for details. Select a series above to show or hide it.
Source
Cards are sent at face value; listed monetary routes may incur 4-6%. Route availability and customer terms vary. Separate funding fees, recipient terms and volume discounts are not included. Current pricing is not evidence of the earlier survey-date price or method-level margins.
Show data tableHide data table
| Category | Published lower endpoint | Published upper endpoint |
|---|---|---|
| Gift cards and prepaid cards | 0 percent sending fee | 0 percent sending fee |
| Listed monetary reward routes | 4 percent sending fee | 6 percent sending fee |
That makes recipient choice both a product question and an economic one. A programme buyer decides which methods to offer and what delivery cost to absorb. A recipient decides whether the resulting value is useful and accessible. A method that looks inexpensive in a purchasing spreadsheet may still fail if the recipient does not want it. A more flexible payment can also carry a cost the sponsor must justify.
The study gives Tremendous a way to argue for offering alternatives within one distribution system. That is a commercial interpretation of its business model, rather than evidence that a particular mix produces more revenue for the company. The publication does not disclose method-level margins or show that survey participants later became customers.
A familiar retailer and an easier claim are different advantages
Situations in which respondents would prefer a gift card
Reported answers from the May 2026 survey. These are response options, not a partition of the population.
%
Tap or hover for details. All values are also available in the data table.
Source
102 U.S. adults aged 18-65; May 2026. The source does not establish mutually exclusive categories. Do not add the bars or interpret them as market shares.
Show data tableHide data table
| Category | Survey respondents |
|---|---|
| Retailer already used | 48% |
| Monetary payout asks for too many account details | 40% |
| Would never prefer a gift card | 26% |
One reading of the results is that gift cards face two separate tests. The brand has to fit the recipient's spending, and the claim process has to feel worthwhile. Reducing administrative effort could change the second test without changing the first. Conversely, a favourite retailer does not remove a confusing or demanding redemption journey.
For a reward sponsor, that distinction affects what a programme is actually buying. The intended return may be a completed research interview, a customer action or participation in an incentive programme. The face value of the reward is only one input. Time spent resolving failed claims also consumes resources, while abandoned rewards may mean the intended exchange never feels complete to the recipient.
What the evidence can bear
The research used 15 multiple-choice questions through Prolific and SurveyMonkey. The publication does not provide subgroup sample counts, weighting or confidence intervals. Its percentages describe stated preferences in this sample, not observed redemption or a controlled programme comparison. [S01]
The participation comparison is also a statement of intent. Respondents rated programmes offering only gift cards or only monetary options on a scale from 1, very unlikely, to 5, very likely. The published age-group means show different answers, but the study did not observe participants enrolling in either programme. [S01]
Stated participation likelihood by reward format and age
Mean survey ratings on a 1-to-5 likelihood scale; not enrolment rates.
mean rating, 1-5 scale
Tap or hover for details. Select a series above to show or hide it.
Source
1 means very unlikely; 5 means very likely. Overall sample102 US adults; subgroup sizes and uncertainty undisclosed. These are stated intentions, not actual enrolment, conversion, retention or a causal reward-format effect.
Show data tableHide data table
| Category | Gift cards only | Monetary options only |
|---|---|---|
| 18-24 | 3.21 mean rating, 1-5 scale | 4.58 mean rating, 1-5 scale |
| 25-34 | 3.14 mean rating, 1-5 scale | 4.71 mean rating, 1-5 scale |
| 35-44 | 3.71 mean rating, 1-5 scale | 4.67 mean rating, 1-5 scale |
| 45-54 | 3.60 mean rating, 1-5 scale | 4.80 mean rating, 1-5 scale |
| 55-65 | 4.10 mean rating, 1-5 scale | 4.60 mean rating, 1-5 scale |
In particular, the situations chart’s options should not be read as competing market shares. Someone can find a familiar retailer attractive and also dislike supplying financial details. Nor does a preference for fewer steps establish that required identity or payment checks can be removed.
The business implication is a narrower one than a claim that gift cards outperform cash: delivery design belongs in the reward decision. Establishing its financial effect would require actual claim completion, support cost and programme outcomes for comparable recipients. Tremendous's survey identifies questions worth measuring, while leaving that causal and commercial evidence open.
In this article
Oliver Reed
Oliver Reed covers industry acquisitions, investment and market research for Gift Card News.